Penhayes

Updated 20 February 2019

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector, who visited on 23 January 2019. We last visited the service in August 2016 and found no breaches of regulations.

We used a variety of methods to obtain feedback from those with knowledge and experience of the service. Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they planned to make.

As part of the inspection we looked at previous inspection reports and other information we held about the home including notifications. Statutory notifications are changes or events that occur at the service which the provider has a legal duty to inform us about.

We contacted the local community learning disability team, the GP surgery, the dentist and commissioners and asked them for some feedback about the service. We received eight responses. You can see what they told us in the main body of the report.

People living at Penhayes had limited communication. Therefore, they were unable to tell us about all their experiences of the services. During our inspection we spent a small amount time with people, observing daily routines and interactions between people and staff supporting them. This helped us gain a better understanding of people and the care they received.

During the inspection, we talked with seven staff including the registered manager either in small groups or individually.

We looked at the care records of two people, staff duty rotas and other records relating to the management of the service. These included one staff recruitment file, maintenance records, incident reports, training records and audits. After the inspection we contacted three relatives about their experience of the service. We also received feedback from 22 staff electronically. You can see what they told us in the main body of the report.

Updated 20 February 2019

This unannounced inspection took place on 23 January 2019. Penhayes is registered to provide care for up to five people who may have an Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and/or learning disability and complex needs. Some of the complex needs may include mental health issues. The service supported people who at times may challenge the service. The service worked in partnership with commissioners and other health and social care professionals.

People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. They were also responsible for a four bed service in the same grounds as Penhayes called Penhayes House. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance were seen in practice at this service. There was evidence that the core values of choice, promotion of independence and community inclusion; were at the centre of people's day to day support. Staff were person centred in their approach in supporting people.

At our last inspection in 2016 we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence

continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Why the service is rated Good.

People remained safe at the service. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and said they

would not hesitate to report any concerns. Risk's to people safety and well-being were managed without imposing unnecessary restrictions on people. Medicines were managed safely ensuring people received their medicines as prescribed.

Staff were safely recruited and employed in sufficient numbers to meet people's needs. The staff team were well trained and supported. There was an action plan to ensure all staff received regular supervision. All staff said they felt they were supported in their role.

Staff protected people's rights by following the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were supported to have choice and control of their lives.

People were provided with nutritious food and drink, which met their dietary preferences and requirements. People were supported to eat a healthy diet of their choice.

People's care plans had been developed to identify what support they required and how they would like this to be provided. People had opportunities to take part in activities and had a core group of staff supporting them. These had been kept under review to ensure they were still relevant based on each person’s wishes.

All complaints had been acknowledged, recorded and investigated in accordance with the provider's policy, to the satisfaction of the complainant. People’s views were sought through regular care reviews. People were supported to keep in contact with their family. Relatives were able to visit Penhayes and participate in regular care reviews.

The service was well managed. There were effective quality assurance arrangements in place to monitor care and plan ongoing improvements. People's views about the running of the service were sought regularly and changes and improvements took account of people's suggestions.